The Complaint and all of the accompanying Annexes have been submitted to the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center in English; and
vii) it would be cumbersome and to the Complainant's disadvantage if Complainant was required to translate the Complaint into Chinese. See LEGO Juris A/S v. M. Moench,
WIPO Case No. DNL2009-0052.
Given that i) the Respondents' websites are all in English, which shows the intention of marketing to international customers; ii) the pre-dispute correspondence between the Complainant and the Respondents was in English; iii) the Respondents have not taken part in the proceedings, the panel decides English shall be the language of the present administrative proceedings.
6.2 Substantive elements of the Policy
A. ...
2010-12-08 - Case Details
DomainAdminkPrivacyProtect.org/Smvs Consultancy Privacy Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1046, LEGO Juris A/S v. PrivacyProtect.org v. SMVS Consultancy Private Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1094, UnitedHealth Group Incorporated v. ...
2010-12-07 - Case Details
D2004-0723, the gTLD extension cannot be taken into consideration when judging confusing similarity to a trademark LEGO. It is well-established that the difference in the top level of a domain name such as “.com”, “.org”, or “.biz” does not affect whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. ...
2010-07-14 - Case Details
Petra Vierkoetter / Protected Domain Services Customer ID: NRC-2616126,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0110).
Moreover, in LEGO Juris A/S v. legooutlet.info Dot InFo legooutlet.info,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0351, the panel held that “the addition of the word “outlet” has no impact on the overall impression of the dominant part of the disputed domain name” and added that “outlet” is a non-distinctive term “commonly used in commercial circumstances referring to a place of business for retailing goods.”” ...
2012-06-29 - Case Details
Cybershop Co., Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0662 () and LEGO Juris A/S v. Hayan Communications Co., LTD.,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1836 ().
For the reasons mentioned above, the Panel finds that the first element has been established.
...
2012-06-26 - Case Details
Further, the disputed domain name is in English, and the webpage accessible under that domain name originally displayed a text in English. The Complainant cites two WIPO UDRP cases (LEGO Juris A/S v. Ilie Cezar,
WIPO Case No. DRO2011-0010 and Mammut Sports Group AG v. Deminzheng,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-06-06 - Case Details
An addition of this nature is inconsequential and does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark (see e.g. LEGO Juris A/S v. Rampe Purda,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0840).
The Complainant submits that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
...
2012-03-28 - Case Details
D2004-0359 (July 12, 2004) (finding respondent had no legitimate
interest in domain name absent a relationship with owner of
LEGO trademark giving rise to such rights).
Complainant further asserts that Respondent has not made a bona fide commercial
use of the disputed domain name. ...
2006-02-07 - Case Details
If a respondent fails to come forward with relevant evidence to rebut the prima facie showing, a complainant is deemed to have proven that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, satisfying the second element. Id.; LEGO Juris A/S v. Aamir Abdul Wahid, Spiro Line Media,
WIPO Case No. D2019-0245; Sperre Mek. Verksted AS v. ...Previous panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous trademark can create a presumption of bad faith registration. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4; LEGO Juris A/S v. Aamir Abdul Wahid, Spiro Line Media, supra; Facebook Inc. v. te5gfh gtfghbfh, supra. ...
2019-06-17 - Case Details
Also previous UDRP panels have regularly ruled that bad faith was found where a domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known trademark that its very use by someone with no connection to the trademark suggests opportunistic bad faith (LEGO Juris A/S v. store24hour,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0091; Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie, L’Oréal v. 10 Selling,
WIPO Case No. 2008-0226).
...
2017-07-18 - Case Details
A gTLD suffix is generally disregarded for the purposes of assessing confusing similarity under the Policy. See Lego Juris A/S v. Chen Yong,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1611; Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. zhanglei,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-08-30 - Case Details
A gTLD suffix is generally disregarded for the purposes of assessing confusing similarity under the Policy. See Lego Juris A/S v. Chen Yong,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1611; Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. zhanglei,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-05-16 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have found that in the absence of any license or permission from the complainant to use such a widely-known trademark, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name can reasonably be claimed. See, for example, LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-07-19 - Case Details
In previous decisions, Panels found that in the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use its trademark, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name could reasonably be claimed (Groupe Auchan v. Gan Yu,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0188; LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,
WIPO Case No.
...
2018-05-23 - Case Details
The only additional element is the Top-Level Domain ("TLD") suffix ".sale" but a TLD suffix may generally be disregarded in the comparison between a domain name and a trademark for the purposes of assessing confusing similarity. See Lego Juris A/S v. Chen Yong,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1611; Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. zhanglei,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-12-19 - Case Details
D2011-1023 ("The Panel also notes that, as found by other panels, where a domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known product or service, its very use by someone with no connection with the product suggests opportunistic bad faith..."); and LEGO Juris A/S v. XMGlobal Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1168 ("[...] the misappropriation of a well-known trademark as domain name constitutes per se bad faith registration in light of the Policy"). ...
2017-12-11 - Case Details
The disputed domain name also contains the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") suffix ".com" but a gTLD suffix is generally disregarded in the comparison between a domain name and a trademark for the purposes of assessing confusing similarity. See Lego Juris A/S v. Chen Yong,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1611; Dr. Ing. H.c. F. Porsche AG v. zhanglei,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-10-06 - Case Details
D2015-2175; Dassault (Groupe Industriel Marcel Dassault) v. Ma Xiaojuan,
WIPO Case No. D2015-1733; Lego Juris A/S v. Chen Yong,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1611; Dr. Ing. H.c. F. Porsche AG v. zhanglei,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-10-03 - Case Details
Where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element (See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and LEGO Juris A/S v. DBA David Inc/ DomainsByProxy.com,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1290).
Therefore, the Panel holds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks.
...
2018-02-12 - Case Details
A gTLD suffix may generally be disregarded in the comparison between a domain name and a trademark for the purposes of the Policy. See Lego Juris A/S v. Chen Yong,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1611; Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. zhanglei,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-01-10 - Case Details